View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Applied Research on English Language
V. 9 N. 1 2020
pp: 103-136
http://uijs.ui.ac.ir/are
DOI:10.22108/are.2019.116248.1451
___________________________________________
* Corresponding Author.
Authors’ Email Address: 1 Zahra Amirian (z.amirian@fgn.ui.ac.ir), 2 Zeinab Karamifar (zeinab.info@gmail.com), 3 Manijeh Youhanaee (youhanaee@fgn.ui.ac.ir) ISSN (Online): 2322-5343, ISSN (Print): 2252-0198 © 2019 University of Isfahan. All rights reserved
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to
Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits
Zahra Amirian 1*
, Zeinab Karamifar 2, Manijeh Youhanaee
3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign
Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran 2
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University
of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran 2
Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign
Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan. Iran
Received: 2019/03/31 Accepted: 2019/06/14
Abstract: This study aimed at investigating the relationship between Willingness to
Communicate and EFL learners‟ Communication Apprehension, Self-perceived
Communicative Competence, Self-regulation, Need for Closure, Tolerance of Ambiguity as
well as Aggression. The participants of this study were 300 (197 female and 103 male) Iranian
EFL learners of English language institutes in Isfahan. To fulfill the purpose of the study,
participants were asked to answer seven questionnaires on Willingness to Communicate
(WTC), Communication Apprehension (CA), Self-perceived Communicative Competence
(SPCC), Self-regulation (SR), Need for Closure (NFC), Tolerance of Ambiguity (TA) and
Aggression (Agg). The results of Structural Equation Modeling confirmed previous studies on
the relationship between EFL learners‟ WTC and SPCC as well as CA asserting that WTC was
positively correlated with SPCC and negatively with CA. It was also found that WTC
positively correlated with TA. However, the findings revealed no relationship between WTC
and SR, NFC and Agg. This study had implications for EFL learners and teachers regarding the
factors influencing WTC in language classrooms.
Keywords: Willingness to Communicate, Communication Apprehension, Self-perceived
Communicative Competence, Self-regulation, Need for Closure, Tolerance of Ambiguity,
Aggression.
104 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Introduction
In the area of language learning, being able to use the target language for communicative
purposes has been considered as a prominent factor for successful second language
acquisition and it has been a matter of concern for second language learners (Hashimoto,
2002). The assumption has been that the active and meaningful participation of language
learners in classroom activities is the prerequisite for achieving communicative competence
(Cao, 2014). The tendency to participate and interact in classroom activities and discussions
has been supposed to be a major key to success in L2 communication. This tendency has
been called Willingness to Communicate. MacCroskey and Richmond (1987) first defined
the concept of willingness to communicate (WTC) in the first language acquisition context.
Later, many scholars endeavored to clarify the extent to which the individuals are ready to
take part in communication in a L2 (MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1998). As stated
by MacIntyre et al. (1998), WTC is explained as “readiness to enter into discourse at a
particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2” (p. 547). In the context of
second language, MacIntyre et al. (2001, p. 369) described WTC as “the intention to initiate
communication, given a choice". Saint Léger and Storch (2009) stated that the primary
models of WTC consisted of the following two major variables: Perceived Communication
and Communicative Anxiety. Considering this model, it is predicted that higher levels of
WTC and the likelihood of higher interactions in communication situations can be caused by
higher degrees of perceived competence along with lower degrees of anxiety. However, more
recent research has indicated that a variety of linguistic, contextual, cognitive and affective
factors may directly or indirectly influence L2 learners‟ WTC in L2 Classrooms (Cao, 2014;
Zarrinabadi & Haidary, 2014; Zarrinabadi & Tanbakooei, 2016).
A number of research have been carried out to find out different individual and
contextual variables which affect WTC of L2 language learners both in the classroom context
and outside (Cao, 2011; Cao & Philp, 2006; Kang, 2005; MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome,
2011). Investigations in the area of second language acquisition have shown that many
factors directly and indirectly affect second language learners‟ WTC such as introversion,
self-esteem, communication competence (skills), communication apprehension, and cultural
diversity.
Considering trait-like view of WTC, many researchers have reported the effect of some
individual variables on WTC. Among them, self-perceived communicative competence and
communication apprehension have been recognized as the main factors which predict WTC
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 105
AREL
(Baker & MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre et al., 2001; McCroskey &
Richmond, 1991).
In second language learning, it is proposed that WTC like other individual variables for
example motivation, language anxiety and personality shows dual characteristics. The first
one is trait-like WTC that is a stable disposition and the other one is situational WTC, which
holds a situated nature (Dörnyei, 2005). According to earlier studies, it is believed that the
trait WTC and situational WTC are complementary. Trait WTC makes language learners
ready for communication. On the other hand, situational WTC affects the decision as whether
to start a communication in special situations or not (Cao & Philip, 2006; MacIntyre, Babin
& Clément, 1999). In the classroom context, different factors influencing ELF learners‟ WTC
have been the focus of much research. For instance, Cao and Philip (2006) found out that L2
WTC was positively influenced by such factors as small group size, topic familiarity, and
self-confidence. In a similar study, Freiermuth and Jarrell (2006) indicated that online
communication, compared to face-to-face conversation, provided a more comfortable
environment facilitating L2 WTC. Also, Pawlak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015) found
out that Polish learners‟ WTC was influenced by a variety of factors including the topic, the
planning time, cooperation and familiarity with the interlocutor, the opportunity to state one‟s
ideas, and the mastery of requisite lexis.
In the conversational contexts, WTC was considered as a multilayered construct which
changes from time to time under the mutual influence of psychological conditions and
situational variables (Kang, 2005). In the classroom interactional context, contextual
variables like interlocutor familiarity and participation, task type, and topic affect WTC (Cao,
2014; Cao & Philip, 2006). MacIntyre (1994) noted that for measuring WTC, studies should
combine personality variables with situational variables. To achieve this purpose, one of the
main models of L2 WTC (MacIntyre et al. 1998) that remarkably affected second language
research, regarded WTC as both the combination of “transient and enduring influences” (p.
546). In another study, Burroughs, Marie, and McCroskey (2003) examined the relations of
self-perceived communication competence, communication apprehension, and WTC in both
L1 and L2 at community college of Micronesia. One hundred and thirty one undergraduate
students participated in their investigation and filled out the questionnaires of CA, SPCC and
WTC. Non-native students showed lower SPCC and WTC compared to US students.
Furthermore, their results revealed that native speaking students of Micronesia were more
willing to talk in comparison to non-native ones.
106 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Need for Closure and Tolerance of Ambiguity in L2 Learning Contexts
Need for closure refers to “the motivated tendency to seek structure, simplify complex
information, and avoid ambiguity” (DeBacker & Crowson, 2009, p. 304). This cognitive
construct has been mostly the focus of research in the field of educational psychology. The
findings of previous studies all confirm that this tendency to avoid ambiguity is related to a
variety of variables including achievement goals, cognitive strategy use, and classroom
grades (DeBacker & Crowson, 2008; Ravindran, Greene & DeBacker, 2005). Previous
studies claimed that need for closure plays a unique role in explaining students‟ motivation to
learn (DeBacker & Crowson, 2009). Also, correlations have been reported between
classroom need for closure and achievement-related variables such as achievement goals and
cognitive engagement (e.g., DeBacker & Crowson, 2008; Harlow, DeBacker & Crowson,
2011). However, this cognitive construct has received little attention (if any) in second
language learning contexts where syntactic or lexical ambiguities may bring about barriers to
understanding. Therefore, this study was motivated to touch upon this neglected cognitive
construct to find out its probable relationships with L2 learners‟ WTC in classroom contexts.
On the other hand, tolerance of ambiguity, as another cognitive construct, has been claimed
to affect language learning as well. Previous studies reveal that ambiguity in language
learning can lead to anxiety (Ehrman, 1999; Oxford, 1999), which in turn may yield
communication apprehension.
Early in literature, Budner (1962) defined tolerance of ambiguity as the individual‟s
tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable. Later, McLain (1993) defined it as “a
range, from rejection to attraction, of reactions to stimuli perceived as unfamiliar, complex,
dynamically uncertain or subject to multiple conflicting interpretations” (p. 184). Some
researchers believe that TA is a context-specific construct depending on the contextual
measures (Herman, et al., 2010). Researchers believe that ambiguous situations are highly
common in language learning situations mostly due to learners‟ unfamiliarity with L2
linguistic or cultural knowledge.
Literature revealed those who can tolerate moderate levels of ambiguity are able to
achieve higher levels of success in language learning (Brown, 2000; Ehrman, 1993; Ely,
1995). Studies mostly deal with the relationship between L2 learners‟ TA and linguistic
achievements like vocabulary knowledge and grammar (Furnham & Marks, 2013). However
little attention has been paid to the relationship between TA and communicate aspects of
language learning like WTC.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 107
AREL
Studies on WTC and Language Learning
From the advent of the WTC concept, second language scholars and many other educated
people have been endeavoring to understand about WTC. Most of the researchers agreed on
the multidimensionality nature of WTC. As a matter of fact, WTC is a complicated term
which can be affected by a wide range of cognitive, instructional, situational, cultural, and
affective factors (Khatib & Nourzadeh, 2015). Investigating the effects of classroom
variables on WTC, Robson (2015) tested a structural model using classroom constructs. The
model used a teacher scoring to measure the relationship between self-report WTC and actual
classroom communication. The number of participants for this study was 67. They studied at
a pre-university academic course in English. Different classroom conditions like the actions
of the teacher, the task, and the use of group work were examined. It was found that
classroom variables directly predicted WTC. In another study, Öz, Demirezen, and Pourfeiz
(2015) reported on individuals' perception of willingness to communicate in the Turkish
context. The researchers found that out of 134 language learners (34 males and 100 females),
21.6% had high WTC, 13.4 % had high communicative competence and 18.7% did well on
communication apprehension questionnaire. Their findings revealed that communication
competence and communication apprehension were the major factors which strongly
predicted WTC.
Studies on WTC in the Context of Iran
Examining WTC both in the classroom and out of classroom context, Zarrinabadi and Abdi
(2011) conducted a study to find the relationship between Iranian EFL students' willingness
to communicate both inside and outside of the classroom and their language learning
orientations. For this purpose, the researchers used a modified version of likert-type
questionnaires developed by MacIntyre, et al. (2001). Sixty-seven students (36 males and 31
females) at the intermediate level whose majors were English literature and translation took
part in this study. The findings indicated that language learning orientations were more
connected to willingness to communicate outside the classroom.
In a similar study, Zarrinabadi and Haidary (2014) attempted to find the relationship
between Iranian language learners‟ WTC and their identity styles. The findings revealed that
WTC and Self-Perceived Communicative Competence (SPCC) are positively correlated with
students‟ formative and normative identity styles, while negatively correlated with diffuse-
avoidance style. Additionally, it was asserted that Communication Apprehension (CA) is
108 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
positively correlated with diffuse-avoidance identity style. Along the same lines, Alemi,
Tajeddin, and Mesbah (2013) examined the impact of individual differences on Iranian EFL
students' willingness to communicate. To measure participants' willingness to communicate,
the questionnaire developed by McCroskey (1977) was utilized. They found no significant
difference between the individuals regarding their major, age, personality type, and gender.
Nonetheless, the researchers found other factors including the time being abroad, length of
study, proficiency level and communicating with foreigners as affecting WTC. In a similar
study on the relationship between WTC, Emotional Quotient (EQ), and foreign language
anxiety, Birjandi and Tabatabaian (2012) found a significant relationship between the above
mentioned variables. Moreover, in their findings, they specified EQ, foreign language anxiety
and some of its subscales as the predictors of WTC.
In another study, Tavakoli and Zarrinabadi (2016) in a sequential explanatory mixed
methods study investigated the effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on Iranian
English language learners' (EFL) L2 willingness to communicate (WTC) in English. The
results of their study indicated that implicit corrective feedback did not affect L2 WTC while
explicit corrective feedback increased it. They added that explicit corrective feedback
enhanced language learners‟ L2 WTC by promoting their L2 self-confidence.
Karimi and Abaszadeh (2017) examined the potential relationships among learners‟
willingness to communicate (WTC) in English, their perceptions of autonomy-supportive
teaching, their motivation and English speaking self-efficacy. The results of Structural
Equation Modeling revealed significant positive paths from autonomy-supportive teaching to
motivation, WTC in English, and English speaking self-efficacy. They also found indirect
paths from autonomy-supportive teaching style and English speaking self-efficacy to WTC
through the mediation of motivation.
Regarding the role of teachers in promoting students‟ WTC, Zarei, Saeidi, and
Ahangari (2019) examined teachers‟ socio-affective and pedagogic strategies. Their findings
revealed some facilitating factors such as developing positive relationships, choice of the
topic, teaching style, and teachers‟ enthusiasm and some inhibiting factors including
teachers‟ role, teaching style, and institutional expectations.
However, there is still a need for investigating other variables predicting WTC inside
the classroom. To the best of the researchers‟ knowledge, cognitive variables have not been
considered extensively in previous studies on WTC. Therefore, this study attempted to focus
on a number of cognitive variables including „self-regulation‟, „tolerance of ambiguity‟, and
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 109
AREL
„need for closure‟. In this study, the researchers considered the participants' „self-perceived
communication competence‟ (SPCC), „communication apprehension‟ and „aggression‟ as
personality variables and „need for closure‟, „tolerance of ambiguity‟, and „self-regulation‟ as
cognitive variables and examined the relationship of the mentioned variables with willingness
to communicate (WTC).
In order to investigate the relationship between WTC and the afore-mentioned
variables, this study addressed two general questions:
1. To what extent are „need for closure‟, „tolerance of ambiguity‟, „self-regulation‟,
„communication apprehension‟, „self-perceived communication competence‟, and
„aggression‟ related to willingness to communicate?
2. How can these relationships be modeled?
Design of the Study
Demographic Information of the Participants
Three hundred participants, both male (34.33 percent) and female (65.66 percent) were
randomly selected from among the language learners of some English language institutes in
Isfahan, Iran. The average age of the statistical sample was 20.9 and its standard deviation
was 5.49. They were at the intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency based on the
criteria of the institutes; however, their level of proficiency was not the concern of this study.
Instruments
For the purpose of this research, a number of questionnaires were employed. One
questionnaire was used to measure language learners' willingness to communicate and 6
others were employed in order to investigate the students' cognitive and personality traits.
Most of the questionnaires used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The questionnaires are described one by one in the following sections.
Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire (Inside the Classroom)
This study employed the Willingness to Communicate inside the classroom questionnaire
from Zarrinabadi and Abdi (2011, adapted from MacIntyre et al., 2001) (see Appendix G).
This 27-item questionnaire is divided into 4 categories: 1. Speaking in an English class,
2. Reading in an English class, 3. Writing in an English class, and 4. Comprehension in an
English class. The items range from 1 to 5 (1=almost never willing, and 5= almost always
110 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
willing). MacIntyre, et al. (2001) described this scale as a reliable and valid one, according to
their alpha levels which represent reliability estimates: speaking (8 items, α= 0.81),
comprehension (5 items, α=0.83), reading (6 items, α=0.83), and writing (8 items, α=0.88).
To validate this scale for the present study, the researchers made use of Cronbach's alpha.
The alpha reliability estimates for this scale in the present study were as follows: speaking (8
items, α=0.7), comprehension (5 items, α=0.7), reading (6 items, α=0.741), and writing (8
items, α=0.855).
Aggression Questionnaire
The aggression questionnaire developed by Orpinas and Frankowsk (2001) was used as the
instrument in the present study. It assessed participants' self-reported aggressive behavior
through 11 items. (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). "The scale measures behaviors that might result
in psychological or physical injury to other students" (Orpinas & Frankowsk, 2001, p. 53).
The internal consistency of this questionnaire, estimated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was
high (0.86). The scale has been presented in Appendix A.
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension Questionnaire (PRCA-24)
The origin of the notion of communication apprehension (CA) traces back to a study
conducted by MacCroskey (1977) in which he defined CA as a kind of anxiety that is
associated with the individuals' spoken conversation. Throughout the history of CA various
researchers have defined it in various ways. Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) viewed CA
as “a kind of shyness characterized by a fear of or anxiety about communication with people”
(p. 127). In this study, this variable was assessed using Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA-24).
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) is a 24-item
questionnaire designed in 5-point likert-scale format (1= strongly disagree, and 5= strongly
agree) most widely used to measure communication apprehension. The researchers adapted
the PRCA-24 questionnaire developed by McCroskey (1977). Alpha reliability estimate for
PRCA-24 in this study was 0.73 (see Appendix B for the questionnaire).
Self-perceived Communication (Communicative) Competence Questionnaire (SPCC)
McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) argued that there are four ways to measure SPCC: 1)
objective observation, 2) subjective observation, 3) self-reports, and 4) receiver reports. They
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 111
AREL
claimed that communication choices are related to the individuals‟ SPCC which decide about
their communicative behavior; thus, self-report measure is widely utilized. Nevertheless,
SPCC would be more beneficial if that individual is not afraid of telling the truth due to
negative consequences. McCroskey and McCroskey (1988) formulated a scale for SPCC
which directly asks individuals to estimate their communicative competence in different
communication contexts.
This study employed self-perceived communicative competence scale (SPCC)
(McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988) to measure the participants‟ perceived competence in the
English classroom. Language learners determined the percentage of time (from 0 % to
100 %) they would feel competent to use English to speak in L2 settings. Higher SPCC
scores indicated higher self-perceived communication competence with regard to three
groups of receivers, namely friends, acquaintances, and strangers in four communication
contexts/settings including public speaking, meeting, groups, and pairs (dyad). The internal
consistency of the scale was α= 0.91. This questionnaire has been presented in Appendix C.
Need for Closure Questionnaire
Kruglanski & Webster (1991) claimed that need for closure displays a desire towards certain,
clear answers to questions and a dislike toward vagueness and uncertainty. As individuals
prefer similar values and opinions, they prefer following powerful leaders because they feel
those leaders could develop their desired uniformity and clarity (Pierro, Mannetti, De Grada,
Livi, & Kruglanski, 2003).
The present study employed a short 15-item version of the revised “Need for Closure”
scale developed and validated by Roets and Van Hiel (2011). This scale is a 6-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 to 6 (See Appendix D). The internal consistency of the scale was
α= 0.71.
Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ)
Miller and Brown developed a seven-step model of self-regulation (Brown, 2000; Miller &
Brown, 1991). This questionnaire consists of 63 items, scored on a 5-point likert-scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (see Appendix E). The internal
reliability of this questionnaire was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha, which was 0.74. Its
construct validity was measured through chi-square X2 tests and a range of goodness-of-fit
measures. X2/df with a value below 3 was considered as acceptable (Carmines & McIver,
112 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
1981). The other indexes such as Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean-Square Error Approximation (RMSEA), and
Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) were used to assess Model-fit. Generally,
for GFI, NFI, and CFI, a value higher than 0.90 is deemed acceptable, and greater than 0.95
is considered as good fit. RMSEA and SRMR lower than 0.08 are considered acceptable
(Byrne, 2001).
Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire
Tolerance of ambiguity questionnaire, developed by Budner (1962) consisting of 16 items
(α= 0.7) in 7-point Likert-scale was employed for measuring the degree of ambiguity
tolerance. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix F.
Data Analysis
SPSS (statistical package for the social science) version 22 was utilized to conduct descriptive
statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages). Furthermore, structural
equation modeling (SEM) was run using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) software
(version 22) to find the probable structural relations between the independent variables (NFC,
SR, CA, SPCC, TA, and Agg) and the dependent variable (WTC). AMOS provides a number
of model fit indices from which the following indices were taken into account in the present
research: goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fit
index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and X2/df.
In the following sections, first the results of descriptive analysis of the questionnaires
have been demonstrated in different tables. Then, the inferential analysis regarding the relations
of the variables of the study with WTC and their structural model has been presented.
Results of Descriptive Analysis of the Questionnaires
This section presents the descriptive analysis of different scales measuring the variables of
this study.
Willingness to Communicate
Based on the results, 34% of the participants had low and very low desire to communicate.
Also, 33.7% and 32.4% of them had moderate and high and very high desire to communicate,
respectively.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 113
AREL
Tolerance of Ambiguity
The participants‟ level of Tolerance of Ambiguity was evaluated using sixteen 5-point Likert
scale items. Hence, 27.7% of the participants stated that they had little and very little
tolerance for uncertain and ambiguous cases. Also, 48% and 24.3% of them had moderate
and high and very high levels of tolerance of ambiguity.
Self-Regulation
The participants‟ Self-regulation was evaluated using twenty 5-point Likert scale items.
According to the results, 66.3% of the participants showed very little and little self-
regulation. Also, 31% and 2.6% of them showed moderate and high and very high levels of
self-regulation, respectively.
Self-perceived Communication Competence (SPCC)
The participants‟ Self-perceived Communication Competence (SPCC) was evaluated using
twelve items based on percentage (0%-100%). Results represented that 12.7% of the
participants stated that they had low and very low levels of SPCC (0%-40%). Also, 26% and
61.3% of them had moderate and high and very high levels of SPCC.
Communication Apprehension
The participants‟ Communication Apprehension was measured using ten 5-point Likert scale
items. Accordingly, 37.7% of the participants stated that they had low and very low levels of
Communication Apprehension. Also, 38.7% and 23.7% of them had moderate and high and
very high levels of apprehension, respectively.
Need for Closure
The participants‟ need for closure was evaluated using fifteen 5-point Likert scale items. The
results showed that 29.7% of the participants stated that they had low and very low levels of
need for closure. Also, 40% and 38.3% of them reported moderate and high and very high
levels of need for closure, respectively.
Aggression
The participants‟ aggression level was assessed using eleven items in terms of frequency of
aggressive behavior. Based on the results, 12% of the participants reported that they did not
114 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
have any aggressive behavior during the week reviewed. Most of the language learners
reported to have aggressive behavior once a week and just a few declared that they displayed
aggressive behavior six times in the week (0.3%).
Inferential Statistics
Spearman Test was used to study the relationship between need for closure and Willingness
to Communicate. The results demonstrated that there was no significant relationship between
these two variables. However, the results of the same test revealed a positive and significant
correlation between tolerance of ambiguity and Willingness to Communicate (at 99%
confidence level) (p=0.009, rs=0.151). The Spearman Test was also used to study the relation
between self-regulation and Willingness to Communicate. According to the results, there was
no significant relationship between these two variables. This test was also used to study the
relation between communication apprehension and Willingness to Communicate. The results
revealed a negative and significant correlation between communication apprehension and
Willingness to Communicate (at 95% confidence level) (p=0.018, rs=-0.137). Likewise, the
results of this test regarding the relation between self-perceived communication competence
and Willingness to Communicate indicated a positive and significant correlation between
SPCC and Willingness to Communicate (at 99% confidence level) (p=0.000, rs=0.261).
Finally, the results of Spearman test revealed no significant relationship between aggression
and Willingness to Communicate.
Structural Equation Modeling
In this study, „Structural Equation Modeling‟ was employed in order to model the
relationships among different variables and predict possible relationships.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Validation of Scales
In order to validate the six sub-scales, Need for Closure, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Self-
regulation (SR), Communication Apprehension (CA), Self-perceived Communicative
Competence and Aggression as the components influencing willingness of language learners
to communicate in English classroom, first, six confirmatory one-factor analysis (CFA)
models were designed and analyzed by Amos Graphics (See Figure 1 to Figure 3 below).
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 115
AREL
Figure 1. Standard Estimation of Confirmatory Model for Validating AGG and CA
Measurement Scales
Figure 2. Standard Estimation of Confirmatory Model for Validating NFC and SR
Measurement Scales
Figure 3. Standard Estimation of Confirmatory Model for Validating SPCC and TA
Measurement Scales
It should be noted that in the first stage of using structural equations, based on calculated
standard coefficients, some items of independent hidden variables were put aside due to their
weak factor load (less than 0.3) and were excluded from the measurement model. Other
variables, shown in Table 1, had a factor load greater than 0.3. Generally, regarding the
116 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
obtained results and also, based on the results of Cronbach's alpha, shown in Table 1, it is
possible to confirm that the research tool is reliable.
Table 1. Description of the Items and Observed Variables of the Sub-scales Effective in WTC
Cronbach's
Alpha
Regression weights Item Sub-scales
C.R. S.E. Estimate
0.864
1 AGG1
AGG 5.835*** 0.24 1.4 AGG2
6.282*** 0.246 1.54 AGG3
5.993*** 0.227 1.36 AGG4
0.861
1 CA2
CA 7.51
*** 0.185 1.38 CA8
7.43***
0.271 2.01 CA3
6.1***
0.164 1.001 CA5
0.71
1 NFC1
NFC 3.03
** 0.276 0.835 NFC2
3.28**
0.303 0.995 NFC9
3.16**
0.424 1.34 NFC4
0.74
1 SR2
SR 4.182*** 0.247 1.034 SR5
4.239*** 0.416 1.76 SR4
4.225*** 0.27 1.14 SR8
0.7
1 TA16
TA 3.51*** 0.212 0.747 TA8
3.54*** 0.43 1.525 TA14
3.21** 0.196 0.629 TA10
0.911
1 SPCC9
SPCC 8.19*** 0.092 0.756 SPCC10
9.73*** 0.072 0.742 SPCC11
11.93*** 0.097 1.159 SPCC12
*: confidence level of 95%, **: confidence level of 99%, ***: error
The fitness indicators used in Table 2, are, in fact, the criteria to confirm the developed
theoretical models using the information collected from the field researches of this study.
These criteria are divided into three groups of Absolute Fit Indices (X2K Score, Root Mean
Residual (RMR) and Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI)), Adaptive Fit Indices (Normed Fit Index
(NFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI)) and frugal fit indices (Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and Parsimony Ratio (PRATIO). As shown in Table 2, the fitness
of the model is acceptable and there are rational relations among the variables of the study.
Among various fitting indicators, if 3 to 4 indicators out of the total number of the indicators
mentioned are appropriate, the model would be appropriate in terms of fitness. As indicated
in Table 2, all of the seven indices used above confirmed the fitness and validity of the six
measurement models based on the collected data. Therefore, it was possible to develop and
evaluate the main model of the research.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 117
AREL
Table 2. Results of Conformity of Measuring Models with Fitness Indicators
PRATIO RMSEA GFI NFI CFI RMR IFI X2/df Index
0-1 0.08 ≥ ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 0.08 ≥ ≥ 0.9 3≥ Suggested criterion*
0.33 0.02 0.98 0.987 0.997 0.028 0.997 1.23 Reported value for AGG
measurement model
0.2 0.064 0.945 0.981 0.989 0.06 0.99 2.21 Reported value for CA
measurement model
0.667 0.08 0.942 0.965 0.979 0.023 0.979 2.44 Reported value for NFC
measurement model
0.463 0.079 0.961 0.988 0.999 0.064 0.999 0.568 Reported value for SR
measurement model
0.33 0.045 0.984 0.981 0.979 0.048 0.98 1.61 Reported value for TA
measurement model
0.48 0.065 0.99 0.948 0.993 0.065 0.993 2.27
Reported value for
SPCC measurement
model
Structural Equation Modeling for Analyzing the Hidden Variables
After performing first-order confirmation factor analysis, the structural equation modeling
was used in order to take consideration of the causal effects in the conceptual model of the
research, and in order to examine the significance of the effects of the main hidden variables
and rank them based on their effect on the formation and explanation of the structure of the
Willingness to Communicate. Structural equation modeling is a combination of route models
(structural relations) and confirmatory factor models (measurement relations).
Table 3. Results of Conformance of the Structural Model with Fitness Indicators
Index X2/df IFI RMR CFI GFI PRATIO RMSEA
Recommended criteria 3≥ ≥ 0.9 0.08 ≥ ≥0.9 ≥0.9 0-1 0.08 ≥
Reported value 2.15 0.922 0.08 0.921 0.9 0.647 0.062
The correlation coefficients between WTC and each of the six variables (aggression
(AGG) (0.12), communication apprehension (CA) (-0.18), need for closure (NFC) (-0.03),
self-regulation (SR) (0.12), tolerance of ambiguity (TA) (0.31) and self-perceived
communication competence (SPCC) (0.28)) were obtained. In addition, Standard Error
Estimates, Critical Ratios, and Significant Levels revealed that the standard estimates of the
variables communication apprehension (CA), tolerance of ambiguity (TA), and self-
perceived communication competence (SPCC) were 95% significant. The fitness indices of
the final model, along with the suggested values for their evaluation, are presented in Table 4.
118 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Table 4. General Effects (Non-standard) of the Observed Variables and Subscales on the
Assessment of Willingness to Communicate
SPCC CA SR TA NFC AGG WTC
WTC .008 -.145 .158 .344 -.028 .073 .000
comprehension .009 -.161 .175 .382 -.031 .081 1.110
Writing .013 -.234 .254 .553 -.045 .118 1.609
Reading .009 -.157 .170 .371 -.030 .079 1.078
Speaking .008 -.145 .158 .344 -.028 .073 1.000
AGG1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .713 .000
AGG2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.004 .000
AGG3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.096 .000
AGG4 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000
SPCC12 1.157 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC11 .749 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC10 .755 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC9 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA2 .000 .724 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA3 .000 1.414 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA5 .000 .713 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA8 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR8 .000 .000 1.146 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR5 .000 .000 1.047 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR4 .000 .000 1.851 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR2 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
TA16 .000 .000 .000 1.314 .000 .000 .000
TA14 .000 .000 .000 1.793 .000 .000 .000
TA10 .000 .000 .000 .717 .000 .000 .000
TA8 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .000
NFC9 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.014 .000 .000
NFC4 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.314 .000 .000
NFC2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .859 .000 .000
NFC1 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Table 5 shows the standard regression coefficients (direct and indirect effects) of the
observed final variables and the sub-scales of the main hidden dependent variables.
Table 5. General Effects (Standard) of the Observed Variables and Subscales on the
Assessment of Willingness to Communicate
SPCC CA0 SR0 TA0 NFC0 AGG0 WTC0
WTC0 .281 -.179 .115 .311 -.028 .118 .000
comprehension .181 -.115 .074 .200 -.018 .076 .643
Writing .228 -.145 .094 .252 -.023 .096 .811
Reading .165 -.105 .068 .183 -.017 .070 .588
Speaking .171 -.109 .070 .188 -.017 .072 .607
AGG1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .564 .000
AGG2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .520 .000
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 119
AREL
SPCC CA0 SR0 TA0 NFC0 AGG0 WTC0
AGG3 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .653 .000
AGG4 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .559 .000
SPCC12 .892 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC11 .603 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC10 .504 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SPCC9 .753 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA2 .000 .546 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA3 .000 .869 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA5 .000 .452 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CA8 .000 .616 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR8 .000 .000 .441 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR5 .000 .000 .435 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR4 .000 .000 .709 .000 .000 .000 .000
SR2 .000 .000 .401 .000 .000 .000 .000
TA16 .000 .000 .000 .519 .000 .000 .000
TA14 .000 .000 .000 .561 .000 .000 .000
TA10 .000 .000 .000 .286 .000 .000 .000
TA8 .000 .000 .000 .390 .000 .000 .000
NFC9 .000 .000 .000 .000 .394 .000 .000
NFC4 .000 .000 .000 .000 .583 .000 .000
NFC2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .337 .000 .000
NFC1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .396 .000 .000
It should be noted that a significant level for all direct final effects was reported based
on standard error and critical ratios. As shown in Table 6, the significant levels for the final
direct effects of the variables communication apprehension (CA), tolerance of ambiguity
(TA) and self-perceived communication competence (SPCC) were less than 0.05.
Table 6. Summary of the Results Obtained from Structural Equation Modelling
Relation Non-standard
coefficients
Standard
error
Standard
coefficients
Critical
Ratio (CR)
Significant
level
AGG --- > WTC 0.073 0.047 0.118 1.55 0.12
CA --- > WTC
-0.145 0.057 -0.179 -2.53 0.011
NFC --- > WTC
-0.028 0.086 -0.028 -0.328 0.743
SR --- > WTC
0.158 0.11 0.115 1.43 0.15
TA --- > WTC
0.344 0.12 0.311 2.86 0.004
SPCC --- > WTC 0.008 0.002 0.281 3.94 0.000
Thus, it could be concluded that the direct effects of these variables were significant at
95% confidence level (see Figure 4).
120 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Figure 4. Standard Estimates of Route Coefficients in the Final Structural Model
Discussion
This study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between students‟ WTC and their
need for closure, tolerance of ambiguity, self-regulation, self-perceived communication
competence, communication apprehension and aggression in the Iranian EFL context. The
findings of this research revealed that WTC was associated with TA, SPCC and CA. Results
confirmed previous findings with respect to the effects of SPCC and CA. It was found that
TA and SPCC were positively correlated with WTC. The findings of this study are in line
with those reported by Fallah and Mashhady (2014) who claimed that SPCC and motivation
were considered as significant predictors of L2 WTC. Oz, Demirezen, and Pourfeiz (2015)
also found a positive direct path from SPCC to WTC and a significant negative path from
PRCA to WTC. These are also in line with McCroskey and Richmond‟s (1987) claim that a
language learner‟s perception of his/her communication competence has significant effect on
WTC. The present research gives the impression to confirm the idea that SPCC is likely to
predict L2 WTC (Ghonsooly, Khajavi, & Asadpour, 2012; Hashimoto, 2002).
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 121
AREL
Self-Perceived Communicative Competence (SPCC) and Communication
Apprehension (CA) were considered as two communicative factors analyzed in many studies
related to WTC. In addition, several other studies (MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre & Charos,
1996; MacIntyre, et al, 1999; McCroskey & Richmond, 1990; Yashima, 2002) specified
SPCC as the strongest predictor of L2 WTC. Also, MacIntyre, Doucette (2010) observed that
WTC was correlated positively with SPCC and negatively with CA among students speaking
French as their L2. Our findings support past results linking perceived competence and WTC
(Yashima Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu 2004).
However, communication apprehension was shown to be negatively correlated with
WTC. The same results were reported in Oz, Demirezen and Pourfeiz (2015) in which CA
was reported to be negatively correlated with WTC. They suggested that greater levels of
motivation may help language learners to decrease their CA which indirectly results in their
WTC in English. The findings of this study are also in line with those reported by Peng and
Woodrow (2010) who claimed that among a variety of affective factors which influence
language learners‟ WTC, anxiety or feeling nervous was the most recurrent one. Fallah and
Mashhady (2014) also reported that CA indirectly influenced L2 WTC. McIntyre et al,
(2003) asserted the same results too. They argued that an inverse relationship exists between
WTC and anxiety. A number of studies such as (Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert, 1999;
MacIntyre, 2007; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; MacIntyre et al. 1997) manifested the
connection of anxiety with foreign language learning and performance.
The innovative side of this research was examining NFC, TA, SR and Agg which were
new concepts to be considered in WTC-related literature and have not been considered in
previous studies. No relationship was found between need for closure, self-regulation,
aggression and WTC. Regarding need for closure, to the best of the researchers‟ knowledge,
no studies were conducted before to investigate the relationship between WTC and NFC.
This lack of relationship may be due to the fact that based on definition, „need for closure‟
demands avoiding participating in uncertain situations or talks. This feature may have led to
the participants‟ unwillingness or avoidance to communicate. Also, findings of this research
revealed no relationship between WTC and Self-regulation. Therefore, subscales such as
evaluating, assessing and so forth which are believed to be the subcategories of SR were
found to show no meaningful relation to WTC. Likewise, with regard to the relationship
between Aggression and Willingness to Communicate among Iranian EFL learners, findings
revealed no significant relationship between these two variables. Therefore, based on the
122 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
results of this study, seemingly, aggression does not lead to (un)willingness to communicate
among Iranian EFL learners.
Tolerance of ambiguity of language learners showed positive and significant
relationship with their WTC. This may be due to the idea that individuals who can tolerate
uncertainty or perceive ambiguous situation as favorable would engage in communication
more (Budner, 1962). In other words, the findings suggest that those participants who had an
orientation to perceive ambiguous situations as favorable might be more willing to
communicate and this led to a direct relation between WTC and tolerance of ambiguity.
Conclusions and Implications
As the results demonstrate, the relationships found between some of the variables
investigated in this study and WTC are strong and meaningful. Structural modeling cannot
ensure the necessary causal conditions; however, it may propose tentative causal inferences
when used with specified and controlled designs (Heather, 2016). Regarding the results of
this study, although we do not claim causality among WTC and any other variables
investigated, some predictions can be made. For instance, high levels of self-perceived
communicative competence can be a good predictor of WTC. On the other hand, low levels
of communication apprehension may lead to higher levels of WTC. Besides, high levels of
tolerance of ambiguity yield higher participation on the part of language learners, and
consequently, lead to higher WTC.
The findings of this research may provide implications for designing teaching
materials. Material designers can focus on developing contexts to increase students‟ Self-
Perceived Communicative Competence, their willingness to read, write, and speak and
decrease their fear or anxiety which is crucial in learning English much more effectively.
This research has pedagogical implications for English teaching and learning as well. Being
able to communicate is a desired goal for language learners. To achieve this goal, language
teachers should upgrade their teaching methods by a better understanding of language
learners‟ WTC. The findings also help teachers to develop their knowledge of the factors that
influence language learners‟ WTC. With such knowledge, they can improve language
learners‟ communicative behavior by developing their CA, SPCC, and Tolerance of
Ambiguity. They should try to decrease factors such as Communication Apprehension, which
impede language learners‟ willingness to initiate communication and develop those factors
like SPCC and TA that encourage communication. Teachers can aware students of these
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 123
AREL
factors and teach them some techniques and make them able to have control over their
feelings, thoughts and their behavior and also expand their point of view toward language
learning and communication.
The second thing to consider is that as language learners do not have access to
authentic language communication, “a better understanding of students‟ WTC in English may
help language teachers to realize and implement instructional strategies that could create
more opportunities to promote communication and students‟ engagements and consequently,
facilitate students‟ English learning and acquisition” (Yu, 2009, p.12). And in this study the
researcher attempted to get a better understanding of language learners‟ WTC in English and
some factors were examined related to that. Besides, as it is asserted in communicative
approaches, students‟ active participation is necessary for learning a second language (Gass,
2003). Hence, facilitating learners‟ communicative behavior becomes crucial.
Furthermore, this study revealed that cognitive and personality factors can
significantly influence language learners‟ WTC. It was found that WTC was correlated
with SPCC, CA and TA. This research calls for the recognition of the importance of
cognitive and personality factors‟ role on learners‟ achievements. Following these
outcomes, it can be said that for improving students‟ WTC in English in an EFL context,
teachers, learners and administers similarly should know about situational and personal
factors influencing second and foreign language learning, specially speaking. In addition,
the results of the present research can theoretically help to develop the literature on the idea
of WTC in an EFL context.
Regarding the limitations, it can be said that the present study did not take age, gender,
and level of proficiency into account; more investigations are called to generalize the results
across different age, gender, and proficiency groups. Moreover, the analytic findings of
structural equation modeling (SEM) may involve further empirical investigation and
replication. In particular, the path from some variables like NFC, SR, Aggression and TA to
WTC, which was tested for the first time in this study, needs further evidence for the stability
of the suggested relationship to be supported. Finally, this research only examined WTC
inside the classroom. Further research could explore the relationship between these variables
and language learners‟ WTC outside the classroom.
124 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
References
Alemi, M., Tajeddin, Z., & Mesbah, Z. (2013). Willingness to communicate in L2 English:
Impact of learner variables. Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 42-61.
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in
communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311–341.
Birjandi, P. & Tabataba‟ian, M. S. (2012). The interrelationships among emotional
intelligence, foreign language anxiety, and willingness to communicate. Journal of
American Science, 8(8), 725-730.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York:
Pearson Education Company.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality,
30, 29-50.
Burroughs, N. F., Marie, V., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). Relationships of self-perceived
communication competence and communication apprehension with willingness to
communicate: A comparison with first and second languages in Micronesia.
Communication Research Reports, 20(3), 230-239.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language
classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468-479.
Cao, Y. K. (2014). A socio-cognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness
to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 789-814.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A
comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4),
480-493.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. (1981). Unidimensional scaling (No. 24). Sage Publications.
Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating
writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49,417-446.
DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2008). Measuring need for closure in classroom
learners. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 711– 732.
DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2009). The Influence of Need for Closure on Learning
and Teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 303–323.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 125
AREL
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in
language acquisition. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ehrman, M. E. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: toward a model of personality and learning.
In Alatis J.E. (ed.). Strategic interaction and language acquisition: theory, practice,
and research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
Ehrman, M. (1999). Ego boundries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning.
In Arnold, J. (ed.). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ely, C.M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In Reid, J. M. (ed.).
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fallah, N., & Mashhady, H. (2014). Testing a model of L2 communication among Iranian
EFLlearners: A path analysis framework. Applied Research on English Language, 4,
59-77.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrel, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: can online chat help?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 189–212
Furnham, A. & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature.
Psychology, 4, 717-728.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction, In C. J. Doughty, M. L Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 104-129). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Ghonsooly, B., Khajavi, G.H., & Asadpour, S.F. (2012).Willingness to communicate in
English among Iranian non-English major university students. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 31(2), 197–211.
Harlow, T., De Backer, H., & Crowson, M. (2011). Need for Closure, Achievement Goals,
and Cognitive Engagement in High School Students. The Journal of Educational
Research, 104, 110–119.
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported
L2 use: the Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 2, 29-70. [Online]
Available: http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/uhwpesl/on-line_cat.html.
Heather, M. (2016). Complexities of Technology Integration in the Elementary Classroom
Context: A Structural Equation Model Study. UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/622.
126 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance
for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management
research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 58-65.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational WTC in a second language. System,
33(2), 277-292.
Karimi, M. N. & Abaszadeh, A. (2017). Autonomy-Supportive Teaching, Willingness to
Communicate in English, Motivation, and English Speaking Self-Efficacy among EFL
Learners: A Structural Equation Modeling Study. Iranian Journal of Applied
Linguistics (IJAL), 20 (2), 113-156.
Khatib, M., & Nourzadeh, S. (2015). Development and validation of an instructional
willingness to communicate questionnaire. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 36(3), 266-283.
Kruglanski, A. W, & Webster, D. W. (1991). Group members reactions to opinion deviates
and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of
environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 215-225.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying WTC: A causal analysis. Communication
Research Reports, 11(2), 135-142.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). WTC in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak
as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576.
MacIntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clément, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate:
Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47 (2), 215-229.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C. Clément, R. & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
Communicate, Social Support, and Language-learning Orientations of Immersion
Students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23 (3): 369–388.
doi:10.1017/S0272263101003035.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn:
Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 59(4), 589-608.
MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C. & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a
language: a qualitative study of French immersion students‟ willingness to
communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 127
AREL
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of
second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–
26. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0261927X960151001.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Clément, R. (1996). A model of willingness to communicate in a second
language: The concept, its antecedents and implications. Paper presented at the World
Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA), Jyväskylä, Finland.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P.D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control.
System, 38, 161-171.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gardner, R. C. (1991). Methods and results in the study of anxiety and
language learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41, 85-115
MacIntyre, P.D., Noels, K., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47, 265-287.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Classroom consequences of communication apprehension.
Communication Education, 26(1), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527709378196.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an approach to measuring
communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 5 (2), 108-113.
McCroskey, L. L., & McCroskey, J.C. (2002). Willingness to communicate and
communication apprehension. In J.L. Chesebro, & J.C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Communication for teachers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). WTC. Personality and interpersonal
communication, 6, 1-11.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). WTC: Differing cultural perspectives.
Southern Journal of Communication, 56(1), 72-77.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). “Willingness to Communicate: A Cognitive
View.” In Communication, Cognition, and Anxiety, edited by, M. Booth-Butterfield,
19–37. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLain, D.L. (1993). The MSTAT-1: A new measure of an individual‟s tolerance for
ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183-189.
Miller, W. R., & Brown, J. M. (1991). Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention
and treatment of addictive behaviors. Self-control and the addictive behaviors, 3-79.
128 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Orpinas, P., & Frankowski, R. (2001). The Aggression Scale: A self-report measure of
aggressive behavior for young adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1),
50-67.
Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners
in Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.
Oxford, R. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In Arnold, J. (ed.) Affect
in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawlak, M., and A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of L2
willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1–9.
Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to Communicate in English: A Model in the
Chinese EFL Classroom Context. Language Learning 60 (4), 834–876.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010. 00576.x.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Autocracy Bias
in Informal Groups under Need for Closure. Personality and social psychology
Bulletin, 29 (3), https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251191.
Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2005). The role of achievement goals and
epistemological beliefs in the prediction of pre-service teacher‟s cognitive engagement
and application learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 222–233.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of
the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90-94.
Saint Léger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners‟ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for
willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269-285.
Tavakoli, M. & Zarrinabadi, N. (2016). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective
feedback on EFL learners‟ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language
learning and teaching, 12 (3), 247-259.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L. and Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and effect
on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language
Learning, 54, 119-152.
Yu, F. (2009). Factors associated with cognition in adults: the Seattle Longitudinal Study.
Research in nursing & health, 32(5), 540-550.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 129
AREL
Zarei, N., Saeidi, M., & Ahangari, S. (2019). Exploring EFL Teachers‟ Socio-affective and
Pedagogic Strategies and Students‟ Willingness to Communicate with a Focus on
Iranian Culture. Education Research International, 1-11.
Zarrinabadi, N., & Abdi, R. (2011). Willingness to communicate and language learning
orientations in Iranian EFL context. International Education Studies, 4(4), 206–214.
Zarrinabadi, N, & Haidary, T. (2014). Willingness to communicate and identity styles of
Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2010-2017.
Zarrinabadi, N., & Tanbakooei, N. (2016). Willingness to Communicate: Rise, Development,
and Some Future Directions. Language and Linguistics Compass 10 (1), 30–45.
130 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Appendix A
Questionnaire on Aggression
Answer the following questions thinking of what you actually did during the last 7 days. For
each question, mark with a circle how many times you did that behavior during the last 7
days.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or
During the last 7 days.
1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
4. I said things about other kids to make other students laugh. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
6. I pushed or shoved other students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
11. I threatened to hurt or to hit someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+
Appendix B
Questionnaire on Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)
This instrument is composed of twenty-four statements concerning feelings about
communicating with others. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you
by marking whether you: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; are Neutral = 3; Agree = 4;
Strongly Agree = 5
_____1. I dislike participating in group discussions.
_____2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
_____3. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
_____4. I like to get involved in group discussions.
_____5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and nervous.
_____6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
_____7. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
_____8. Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a meeting.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 131
AREL
_____9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a
meeting.
_____10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
_____11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.
_____12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.
_____13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous.
_____14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.
_____15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.
_____16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.
_____17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.
_____18. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.
_____19. I have no fear of giving a speech.
_____20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech.
_____21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
_____22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
_____23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.
_____24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
Appendix C
Questionnaire on Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale (SPCC)
Directions: Below are twelve situations in which you might need to communicate. People‟s
abilities to communicate effectively vary a lot, and sometimes the same person is more
competent to communicate in one situation than in another. Please indicate how competent
you believe you are to communicate in each of the situations described below. Indicate in the
space provided at the left of each item your estimate of your competence.
Presume 0 = completely incompetent and 100 = competent.
_____1. Present a talk to a group of strangers.
_____2. Talk with an acquaintance.
_____3. Talk in a large meeting of friends.
_____4. Talk in a small group of strangers.
_____5. Talk with a friend.
_____6. Talk in a large meeting of acquaintances.
_____7. Talk with a stranger.
132 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
_____8. Present a talk to a group of friends.
_____9. Talk in a small group of acquaintances.
_____10. Talk in a large meeting of strangers.
_____11. Talk in a small group of friends.
_____12. Present a talk to a group of acquaintances.
Appendix D
Questionnaire on Need for closure scale REVISED
Short version of the revised NFC scale:
Roets, A. & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of
the need for closure scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 90-94.
1. I don't like situations that are uncertain.
2. I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways.
3. I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament.
4. I feel uncomfortable when I don't understand the reason why an event occurred in my life.
5. I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes.
6. I don't like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it.
7. When I have made a decision, I feel relieved
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I‟m dying to reach a solution very quickly.
9. I would quickly become impatient and irritated if I would not find a solution to a problem
immediately.
10. I don't like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions.
11. I dislike it when a person's statement could mean many different things.
12. I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more.
13. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life.
14. I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming my own view.
15. I dislike unpredictable situations.
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 133
AREL
Appendix E
Questionnaire on Self-Regulation Questionnaire
1. I usually keep track of my progress toward my goals.
2. My behavior is not that different from other people's.
3. Others tell me that I keep on with things too long.
4. I doubt I could change even if I wanted to.
5. I have trouble making up my mind about things.
6. I get easily distracted from my plans.
7. I reward myself for progress toward my goals.
8. I don't notice the effects of my actions until it's too late.
9. My behavior is similar to that of my friends.
10. It's hard for me to see anything helpful about changing my ways.
11. I am able to accomplish goals I set for myself.
12. I put off making decisions.
13. I have so many plans that it's hard for me to focus on any one of them.
14. I change the way I do things when I see a problem with how things are going.
15. It's hard for me to notice when I've Ahad enough@ (alcohol, food, sweets).
16. I think a lot about what other people think of me.
17. I am willing to consider other ways of doing things.
18. If I wanted to change, I am confident that I could do it.
19. When it comes to deciding about a change, I feel overwhelmed by the choices.
20. I have trouble following through with things once I've made up my mind to do
something.
Appendix F
Questionnaire on Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale
1. An expert who doesn‟t come up with a definite answer probably doesn‟t know too much.
2. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while.
3. There is really no such thing as a problem that can‟t be solved.
4. People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living.
5. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear.
6. It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one.
134 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
7. In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small, simple problems rather
than large and complicated ones.
8. Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who don‟t mind being different
and original.
9. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar.
10. People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don‟t know how complicated things really
are.
11. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected
happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for.
12. Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufficient information.
13. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the
people are complete strangers.
14. Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give one a chance to show
initiative and originality.
15. The sooner we all acquire similar values or ideas the better.
16. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things.
Appendix G
Questionnaire on WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
(MacIntyre et al., 2001)
This questionnaire is composed of statements concerning your feelings about communication
with other people, in English. Please indicate in the space provided the frequency of time you
choose to speak in English in each classroom situation.
1 = Almost never willing
2 = Sometimes willing
3 = Willing half of the time
4 = Usually willing
5 = Almost always willing
Speaking in class, in English
1. Speaking in a group about your summer vacation. ……
2. Speaking to your teacher about your homework assignment. ……
3. A stranger enters the room you are in, how willing would you be to have a conversation if
he talked to you first? ……
Structural Equation Modeling of EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate and Their Cognitive and Personality Traits 135
AREL
4. You are confused about a task you must complete, how willing are you to ask for
instructions/clarification? ……
5. Talking to a friend while waiting in line. ……
6. How willing would you be to be an actor in a play? ……
7. Describe the rules of your favorite game. ……
8. Play a game in English. ……
Reading in class (to yourself, not out loud)
1. Read a novel. ……
2. Read an article in a paper. ……
3. Read letters from a pen pal written in native English. ……
4. Read personal letters or notes written to you in which the writer has deliberately used
simple words and
constructions. ……
5. Read an advertisement in the paper to find a good bicycle you can buy. ……
6. Read reviews for popular movies. ……
Writing in class, in English
1. Write an advertisement to sell an old bike. ……
2. Write down the instructions for your favorite hobby. ……
3. Write a report on your favorite animal and its habits. ……
4. Write a story. ……
5. Write a letter to a friend. ……
6. Write a newspaper article. ……
7. Write the answers to a “fun” quiz from a magazine. ……
8. Write down a list of things you must do tomorrow. ……
Comprehension in class
1. Listen to instructions and complete a task. ……
2. Bake a cake if instructions were not in Persian. ……
3. Fill out an application form. ……
4. Take directions from an English speaker. ……
5. Understand an English movie. ……
136 Applied Research on English Language, V. 9 N. 1 2020
AREL
Recommended